Ds and V were friends, had been drinking and were involving themselves in horseplay. Ds decided to drop V over a 10ft balcony, causing him injury. The judge directed that if a reasonable, sober man would have foreseen some harm then they were guilty. They were convicted of GBH. However CA upheld their appeal on the grounds that they ought to have been convicted if they themselves, when sober, would have foreseen the risk and therefore the convictions were quashed. Even though the trial judge misdirected on objective/subjective foresight, this surely ought not to have changed the outcome, unless the court saw something that implied that whereas a reasonable man might have foreseen some harm, these particular men would not.